Tuesday, June 7, 2011

The Assad regime is claiming that 120 security officers were killed in northern Syria in the past couple of days. These figures and the circumstances are disputed, and there is speculation of a mutiny, but regardless of whether real or exaggerated, this could be the excuse Assad has been looking for.

This video of a Syrian riot policeman wielding a machete, shows what is in store:

Bashar Assad's father killed upwards of 10,000 people in the city of Hama in 1982.

The only question is, will this be a case of "like father, like son," and if so, will the Obama administration again only demand "reforms."

4 comments:

If you're a non-Muslim, aka an infidel aka a kuffir (a more slanderous term), your fate is sealed by that fact alone.

And if you're a Muslim, and call yourself as such, there're plenty of other more "pious" Muslims who will come along and accuse you of not being "Islamic enough," thereby justifying their ending your life.

"In February 1982, Rifaat_al-Assad commanded the forces that put down a Muslim Brotherhood revolt in the central city of Hama, by instructing his forces to shell the city, killing thousands of its inhabitants (reports range from between 5,000 and 40,000, the most common suggestion being around 15-20,000). This became known as the Hama Massacre. The United States journalist Thomas Friedman claims in his book From Beirut to Jerusalem that Rifaat later bragged that the total number of victims was no less than 38,000."

Rifaat El Assad is currently living in Mayfair, London.

"Where is a mass murderer when you need one? Well in Syria’s case Rifaat El Assad is usually seen swanning around the lobbies of either the Dorchester or Claridges. I am of course referring to Dr Bashar’s paternal uncle the ruthless Rifaat Al Asaad."

The Obama Administration wants no part of what is going on in Syria, and will NOT become militarily involved, regardless of how bad any genocide perpetrated by Assad becomes. PERIOD. The reasons are as follows:

1.) There is NO interest by European allies in Syria (who actually DID predicate the attack on Libya for oil-flow purposes, unlike the false claim against the Iraqi military operations).

Europe did this first because the uprising had the potential to cut the French off from their investment, and grew later because Qaddafi was threatening to seize European oil operations and turn them over to China, Russia and India. Once Europe was involved, and called for NATO help, the US was obligated to assist by TREATY, not because they really wanted to.

Syrian oil production is low (400K barrels / day), cost of production is comparatively high and Europe has only a small investment there. The Europeans aren't going to take the first step in Syria.

2.) The close ties Syria enjoys with politically with Iran create a a natural alliance which currently keeps Hezbollah roughly contained and focused on Israel as a target. Iran would likely support Syrian forces and Hezbollah guerrilla fighters by supplying weapons, arms and potentially aircraft or drones for air support, making it MUCH more dangerous militarily for US Air operations. Iran would likely not DIRECTLY get involved lest they provoke a direct military confrontation (which they KNOW they would lose, notwithstanding their overt posturing against our naval forces in the Gulf). Iran has found that fine line of making military life miserable without actually doing enough to justify an attack, and they don't want to breach that line.

Further, the opposition in Syria, while roughly as fervent, is not nearly as ORGANIZED as in Libya. Any future power vacuum is likely to be filled by a Hezbollah puppet government, and Syria then FULLY becomes a satellite of Iran. It really doesn't matter to the Iranians, but Assad being in power gives Obama at least the appearance of being able to negotiate with the Syrian leadership.

3.) The Obama administration DESPERATELY wants to be seen by the world as being "fair" to the Arab populations. See the disaster that was the "return to the 1967 lines" speech from a few weeks ago. Tepidly supporting "free-elections" movements (they're NOT democracy, so don't call them that) enures them to the populace and makes them look like heroes for being "on the right side of history" when the likely revolts settle down. Taking out Assad, while it would please SOME of the LOCAL Syrian populace, would be attacked on the "Arab Street" as being a round-about attack on the "Palestinians" at the behest of Israel because of Syria's support of "Palestinian" causes. Obama would lose face, and we know how he hates that.

4.) Building off of #3 and being on the right side of history, most of the dictators where revolts are taking place are already OLD MEN. Mubarak was 82 when deposed, Qaddafi turned 69 today. Bashar al-Assad is only 45. Trying to end a regime with a young leader is FAR more difficult, because they're likely to try to hang on tooth-and-nail, rather than take their $100 Million and disappear to some secluded island.

Long analysis short: Obama will NOT get involved in Syria, no matter how hypocritical it appears when juxtaposed against Libya.

Contributors

These Are Only MY Opinions

In case you were wondering, all opinions and views expressed on this blog are my own, and do not represent the views of any employer or other organization.

Terms of Use

By using this blog, you agree that all original content on this blog is copyright of William A. Jacobson. You may quote from my posts provided that you clearly identify me as the author, link to the original post or home address of this blog, and do not charge for access to the website, publication or other media in which the quote appears. Although comments are moderated, I accept no responsibility for what other people say, and I reserve the right to block or remove any comment for any reason or no reason. Any e-mails sent to me are subject to publication, and any disputes regarding this site will be litigated exclusively in the jurisidiction in which I reside at the time of the dispute.